Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9 /archive 10 /archive 11 /archive 12

Is Transnistria a sovereign state?

I would also like to say something about Political status chapter: Mauco, introduced:

Transnistria is sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[1]

just before he blocked the page. His edit summary was:m (→Political status - sentence on sovereignty. Uncontroversial: Moved textually from List of sovereign states's existing definition of Transnistria) The text he moved textually is:

Five states, neither UN members nor recognised by any states that are, but sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

I find it unacceptable: at List of sovereign states it is written clearly:The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute. Mauco also introduced unsourced and biased material at Economy chapter.Dl.goe 10:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dl.goe. i still have to see which other state entered in relations with Transnistria. Dpotop 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: Montevideo does not require relations with foreign states. It merely requires the "capacity" to enter into relations with foreign states. - Mauco 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Montevideo convention was signed only by some countries from America. No European country signed Montevideo convention, and Moldova also didn't sign it. Montevideo is only one of hundreds obsolete treaties of history. As a general rule, Mauco, don't introduce changes not agreed by other editors and not disscussed here.--MariusM 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume good faith, but it is a fact that you know better. Because you appear as one of the editors of Montevideo Convention in that page's edit history, so I know for a fact that you are familiar with the convention or at least with Wikipedia's article on the convention. But here is a reminder, just in case: As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. In other words: Worldwide. - Mauco 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty means a legally internationally-recognized (but not necessarily independent) state. Transnistria is not legally a sovereign state. Moldova's legislation, for exmaple, gives to Gagauzia autonomy, and the right to claim sovereignty should the sovereignity of Moldova be changed. Moldova's legislation gives to Transnistia the right to claim large autonomy, subject to agreement on the closing of the conflict: 1) enter the legality, 2) democratization, and 3) the withdrowal of foreign troops. There is oppinion inside Moldova whether Trasnistria could be given even sovereignty (but not independence), should there be agreement. The majority believes that that would be too much, but there are those who think that if that brings a complete end to the conflict, it could be accepted. Transnistrian self-proclaimed autorities do not agree to any solution that leaves open the posibility that their leadership could be challenged (by free ellections).

While there is a notion of "de-facto independent", noone has yet introduced the notion "de-facto sovereign". This would be like a person which does not hold a driver license claiming that he has a "de-facto right to drive". Of course, until is cought.

Examples of sovereign, but not independent states: former USSR republics, former Yugoslavia republics, Bavaria (the only land in Germany that is sovereign), Athos Mountain in Greece, the states of USA. I don't know if all Canadian provinces, but Quebec - yes. All these are/were recognized in the legislation of the bigger state. Transnistria is obviously not in this category. :Dc76 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is of course what the Disputed status of Transnistria is all about, and a big reason why we have frequent edit wars over this highly contentious page. So I will cut to the chase: Is there anything in the current article which is incorrect in how it describes Transnistria's sovereignty or lack of same? If so, what? And what are the grounds on which it should be removed or changed? - Mauco 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is incorrect info in this article: Transnistria is not sovereign according to the Montevideo convention. At best, no reliable source says it, so that anyway saying it here qualifies as original research. Dpotop 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. We'll just add a source or two, then, and that is that. Do not remove the statement just because you don't agree with reality. I also notice that your attempts [2] within the last few hours[3], with help[4] from MariusM, to erase[5] all mention of Transnistria from Wikipedia's long-standing stable version of List of sovereign states have ended in constant, repeated reverts from the established editors of that article. - Mauco 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert on international law, and cannot give my view on what exactly the status of the territory is in international law. Nevertheless, I have seen diverse publications with radically different takes on the subject, all of which claimed the support of reputable sources. I believe that the sentence regarding sovereignty in its current form, does indeed constitute original research by Wikipedia standards as no source is currently provided to support this information. However, I would not object to the inclusion of this information provided that an independent and reputable source can be found (i.e. not from Olvia or Pridnestrovie.net), and provided that the opposing viewpoint is also mentioned to ensure balance. TSO1D 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How about bringing in some experts on international law to set the record straight? User:Osgoodelawyer has sometimes participated in this talk page, and he is active on List of countries and List of sovereign states. Likewise Electionworld, if I recall correctly. The contested statement is very simple and straightforward. It merely says: "Transnistria is sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states." All of these four facts can of course be fully sourced. - Mauco 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

please put the sources, and I agree with the outside expert opinion, this is a complex field international law, it is good to hear from the experts from the two lists, List of countries and List of sovereign states first Pernambuco 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Osgoodlawyer is an well-known POV-pusher from List of countries and List of sovereign states. Why you nominate him as "expert of international law"? You often like to pick a mediator, while you are reluctant to accept transparent WP:DR procedures. I have an open mediation with you where you are not active, probabily because the mediator was not selected by you, he was a neutral mediator from Mediation Comitee.--MariusM 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the controversed paragraph.Dl.goe

discuss it first, mauco has offered to give sources and I like the suggest of an international law expert opinion, maybe not osgoodlawyer if he is a POV pusher (I do not know if it is true) but instead someone else. Why, becuase Transnistria is already in List of countries and List of sovereign states, this is something which both Mariusm and Mauco agrees on, it is not something you can just remove if you dont remove Transnistria from those two lists also I think........ Pernambuco 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is meant to inform, not decide. An expert opinion would be useless, as long as we are speaking about a Wikipedia editor. If sources are found, we can write: "X considers Transnistria a sovereign state", or "According to X Transnistria is a sovereign state". The status of Transnistria is disputed; some say that Transnistria is a region of Moldova, some say it is a state. Claiming it is a sovereign state is POV. At List of countries and List of sovereign states, it is clearly written:The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute. I understand both lists contain all countries which may be sovereign/ all territories which may be countries, including the ones with uncertain status. In my opinion, if we remove Transnistria from these lists, it is taking side.Dl.goe 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you will think this meaningful or not, but this is a snippet from the Guardian (a veryy well respected UK newspaper): "The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status...." Full Article. So, going by this viewpoint, if Kosovo or even Scotland is not a sovereign state, how on Earth can Transnistria be? Jonathanpops 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I left the source in my briefcase at work ("light" reading), but I can provide a reference (from the first critical comparative analysis of the "frozen zone" conflicts) that specifically speaks to this point and says that meeting the first three Montevideo criteria does not confer the fourth (ability to conduct foreign relations--clearly the PMR can't if it's not recognized by the world community), nor does meeting them confer legitimacy--which is clearly what is/was intended by the presence of the paragraph.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I would like to get the page protection lifted but it is obvious that we are not ready yet. What can be done to speed things up and get resolution on some of the key issues? Mind you, not all. Just as many as possible, so that we avoid a renewal of the tiresome revert warring in the main article.

Who wants to take the initiative to perhaps wrap up some of the conclusions we have reached, and try to find closure on some of the others? Maybe Vecrumba? - Mauco 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Or TSO1D? - Mauco 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Or Pernambuco? Anyone? I don't want to be the one to add new things, and I certainly don't want to be the one to revert others. But in view of the history of the page, it is important that we don't slide into the same bad old habits. Please just summarize some of what we have agreed on so far, and only add or delete those things. Then let us constructively discuss the rest. - Mauco 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that my request here is in vain. User:MariusM took advantage of the lift of the page protection just now. He was nearly absent from this Talk page for the past week. But as soon as the page got unlocked, he made 9 edits within 7 hours [6] (with hardly any Talk page participation). This is edit warring. Uncool. - Mauco 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been PC (personal computer, not political correctness) building, still straightening out years of files/backups/etc. I'll put my thinking cap on over the next few days.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria in popular culture

I think that it was generally agreed that this section could just go. Both myself and MariusM agree on this.[7] Is that OK with everyone? Or is there somewhere we can move it to? I thought of moving it and turning it into a 'See also' stub but I fail to see how it would meet notability criteria at this point in time.- Mauco 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, there is no need to have such a section full of trivia. TSO1D 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now gone, since we are in agreement with MariusM on this. I wish we could get the same level of consensus on other issues (adding as well as deleting). Let us try. - Mauco 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suvorov

At Internal Politics section is writen: In the central square of Tiraspol there is a statue of Alexander Suvorov, who in 1792 founded modern Tiraspol as a Russian border fortress. As I previously told, I consider irrelevant for this article, is relevant for Tiraspol article. If we want to make the article shorter we can take out this kind of sentences.--MariusM 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but before you rush quickly onto the page to remove it (as you did here[8]) it would be nicer to please wait for some of the rest of us to chip in. That is what the talk page is for. So the question is: Is a one-sentence mention of Suvorov relevant to this article? I have my own opinion, but maybe we should give other a chance to have a say, too, before we start mutilating the article... - Mauco 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I first raised the issue of Suvorov in 1st January [9]. I don't think I rushed quickly to remove, I gave enough time for others to comment. The idea of removal came as i see a desire from other editors to shorten this article, to concentrate only in relevant things.--MariusM 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think we should ask others to comment, then at least give me a chance to put in my own 2 Kopeks:

* Suvorov's statue is on the uniforms of the armed forces

* Suvorov's statute is given official flower tributes on at least five different occasions each year

* No single item has been the subject of more Transnistrian postage stamps than the Suvorov statue [10]

* The Suvorov statue is the logo of the main TV station (First Republic channel, formerly TV PMR) [11]

* Suvorov's statue is the main part of the Olvia Press ID [12] (state news agency)

* Suvorov is on the money, the PMR ruble[13]

In short, the Suvorov statue is practically the official image of Transnistria. He is much, much more prevalent than Lenin or the Soviet tank (which you insist on mentioning). Why does Suvorov not merit at least one single line in the Transnistria article? Why is an anonymous Soviet tank more important? Explain, but do not delete. - Mauco 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not against mentioning Suvorov, but I don't believe that the second sentence in the internal politics section should describe the monuments of Tiraspol. I believe that a brief summary in the caption of the photo should be enough, or if not, the information should be moved to another place. TSO1D 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a big photo of Soviet tank in the article. Why is this more relevant than Suvorov? I am not pushing to remove the tank, but I respectfully request that we keep everything in perspective. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Transnistria knows that Suvorov is the most important symbol. Forget Lenin, tanks, etc. The statue is important symbolism. Please keep the one single little puny sentence. MariusM has removed it twice today. I wish that he would discuss and seek consensus first, before dismembering the article unilaterally. - Mauco 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why that image was deleted. I believe that the picture of Suvorov should be added to the history section, by the "Russian Empire" section, and the caption can give a brief explanation of who he was. He is also mentioned in the cap of the Ruble picture. Nevertheless, I don't believe that the presence of the statue should be mentioned in the internal politics section. I just don't understand how that monument fits into that section. Maybe the information could be presented elsewhere, and maybe the cap will be enough, I don't know. TSO1D 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted by MariusM. Twice today. I am very sorry, but I had to revert him. I do not like this constant revert warring. I wish that we could work this out in Talk, as I am trying to do. My point is that if we have a picture of a Soviet tank, and we claim that this is an important monument, then we must at least also have a picture of the Suvorov statue, which is a much, much more important monument. Please help me restore it if he deletes it again. - Mauco 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the placement of the sentence, it can be moved. But read the preceding sentence. The two sentences should be moved together. I propose that they be moved into the geography section. - Mauco 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, the part about Tiraspol as the capital, the logical place is in Geography, also that it is landlocked and so on Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The statue of Suvorov belongs in there: he is the man who conquered Transnistria for Russia during the wars with the Ottomans and that's an important part in this region's history. But I think that the caption is not relevant here, as this is not the article about Tirapsol. bogdan 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bogdangusca about this, but the change is already made, and also i moved the part about Tiraspol into ¨geography¨ and the sentence of Suvorov is deleted already now Pernambuco 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why did this or similar stuff got erased? :Dc76 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there is an user who want to apply censorship here. Other 5 users: Me, Dpotop, Dl.goe, DC76 and TSO1D wanted the paragraph "border issues" to be part of the article, Mauco want it deleted. In my opinion the best solution would be to keep the entire paragraph in the article, for the purpose of achieving a compromise I accepted to have a shorter variant. I don't think the shorter variant is better (for example, it talk about Varnitsa but is missing Tighina from "border issues"), I just wanted to achive a compromise. We have a lot of other disputes regarding the article, I propose to have a poll, as a practical way to achieve compromise.--MariusM 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph should be re-introduced as in the previous link. Then, we can discuss changes. But it is absolutely necessary because it shows Transnistria does not have a clear territory, simply claims that go beyond its geographical area, and no control over parts of it. Dpotop 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to Moldova, you know. Except that the disputed villages constitute, like, 1% of the Transnistrian territory, whereas Transnistria itself is a relatively much bigger part of Moldova. If you drop the "control" part, that'll leave both Transnistria and Moldova with a "clearly defined territory".

In my opinion, the first paragraph (slightly reworded) of that section should be inserted here, with the village listings presented somewhere like Disputed status of Transnistria.

Poll

Note that User:William Mauco has been blocked for 10 days whilst this poll has been running; his opinions will not be reflected in it.

Border issues

I've changed "clashes" with "confrontation" and I added Tighina at one point of border issues, however through rephrasing the total lenght of the paragraph remained the same. Proposed paragraph:

Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. In the same time, some areas which geografically belong to Bessarabia, not to Transnistria, including the city of Tighina, are controlled by Transnistrian authorities. Tense situations have frequently surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, but withdrew after a few days, in 2006 around Varniţa (a suburb of Tighina under Moldovan control) and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities.--MariusM 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as factually corect and relevant info, and it includes all observations done until now to this paragraph.--MariusM 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per MariusM. Dpotop 11:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per MariusM. EvilAlex 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per MairusM. Dl.goe 14:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a synthesis of Marius', TSO1D's and Dc76's proposals, replacing the last sentence of the Political Status section. --Illythr 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Illythr. --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The only part about this paragraph that I don't like is the emphasis on geography. It implies that the PMR should have all Transnistrian territories, and Moldova all of Bessarabia. As I said before, I believe that this paragraph should focus on Transnistrian claims to land they do not control. The other way around, Moldova claims all of the land in the hands of the PMR, so we shouldn't single out only some locations because they are on the left bank. Besides, the lack of complete correlation between geography and political status is already mentioned in that paragraph. I believe that a version like the following might be better:

"Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. These villages along with Varniţa and Copanca, near Tighina, are claimed by the PMR. Tense situations have periodically surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca,, in 2006 around Varniţa, and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when a confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, however without any casualities." TSO1D 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I inserted the text. I took some of the former stuff and part of Marius's text and added that to geography, and the other paragraph to political status. Is everyone ok with this? TSO1D 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

it is fine . Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep MariusM proposal, as more cleanup grammatically than mine. I understand Pernambuco's observation, but given the fact that Transnistria is both a geographical region and a political entity, I favour keeping all info from MariusM's proposal. How about changing "not to Transnistria" to "not geographically in Transnistria"? Further proposals (from Pernambuco) about this detail, now or later, would be absolutely ok with me. As for TSO1D proposal, I only see two additional changes: "Varnita and Copanca" was added, and at the very end "however" was added. I agree with TSO1D' second proposal (adding "however"). But I prefer "Varnita and Copanca" in MariusM's form. The reason is that the paragraph would otherwise state from Tighina area only villages under Moldova's control and claimed by Transnistrian autorities, but not vice-versa. I think that all 5(+1)+4+9=18(19) localities from all three buffer zones must be mensioned somewhere, maybe in the geography section or in the article Localities of Transnistria. So I'll make the respective proposals at those respective places. :Dc76 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep MariusM, Except for spelling :-) I like the original proposal better. Much has been made by the PMR of the natural dividing line/barrier of the Dniester. The territorial distinctions of what is on which side of the Dniester (and who controls) are very relevant and should be kept for clarity. "Left bank" and "right bank" would work as well, but then we would be adding yet another set of territorial terminology.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Department position regarding Human Rights

The proposed paragraph added imediately after "critics claim..." is:

In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted.[...] Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers.[...] Transnistrian authorities regularly harassed and often detained persons suspected of being critical of the regime for periods of up to several months.U.S. Department of State referring to year 2005

I mention that Mauco agree that we can have a summary of US Department position, the proposal is already a summary, however it was still deleted. I don't understand what can be sumarized more from a quite long document.--MariusM 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as the proposal is already a summary.--MariusM 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Dpotop 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Dl.goe 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks compact enough. --Illythr 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but I would prefer it to be inserted directly into the text using quotes, not "blocktext" (i.e. without the gray background) TSO1D 15:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, in the way that Ts1od says Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, both forms (separate or in-text quotes) are ok, so just through a coin :Dc76 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I fully agree with TSO1D: use quotes. Helen28 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie

Based also on JonathanPops opinion, I removed the word "officially" from the introduction. We already are saying that the name Pridnestrovie is according PMR Constitution, we should not present it more official than that. But let's see what other editors think.--MariusM 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, as inaccurate. Pridnestrovie is not official as PMR is not officially recognized, we can call this name "per PMR Constitution" which is factually correct and is showing accurately which is the officiality who is using this name.--MariusM 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. The word means nothing. Dpotop 11:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Dl.goe 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I just don't see what the big deal is one way or another. As it follows from the PMR Constitution, calling it official is justified. TSO1D 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. As Vecrumba had noted above, as long as the PMR Constitution is mentioned nearby, the word is only as "official" as the Constitution. The same goes for "official PMR government position" etc. I also think the word actually strengthens Marius' position, as using the word "officialy" usually implies that the reality is somewhat different. --Illythr 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

but this was part of the compromise version and I remember from the last archive both Vecrumba and Mauco made an agreement, not to change anything now, because then it is not the cmpromise version any more, and then they wanted to change other things,and then it never stops, so it will be a big mistake to change it Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I missed this bit. I say Remove because I don't think it fits. I do think it has a point of view feeling, but if the majority insist on keeping it I will go with that. Jonathanpops 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also wanted to ask if people think the meaning is lost, or if the article loses anything by not having the word in there? Jonathanpops 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Jonathanpops.:Dc76 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know and see, nothing in meaning is lost. :Dc76 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer without the word officially, the compromise was that Mauco insisted that since the word had been in there so long, prior agreement, etc. that it must be kept; if so, then I insisted that we indicate exactly whose "official" term it is, hence, according to the PMR constitution. Of course, that's now just a longer way of saying official according to whom, so I would completely agree the presence of the term "official" is redundant in this context and it can be removed--and without changing the intended nature of the "officialness" of the Pridnestrovie name.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Transnistria is independent, you just haven't realised it yet! ;-) --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And I thought you are a serious contributor...:Dc76 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Firstly: we had a consensus on the given problem in 4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops... Is there any necessity to repeat the opinions once more? Secondly: we cannot blink at the existence of PMR. And we must agree that Pridnestrovie is the OFFICIALn short varian of PMR.Helen28 13:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  Just a reminder for Helen, it was never a consensus about the word "officially". We don't blink the existence of PMR, PMR is the subject of our article, but we can not present PMR else than it is.--MariusM 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep it but you can not vote on these things, if the compromise falls apart, then the whole introduction will go back to edit warring again, it is like Helens says, it is like Groundhog Day. Every time MariusM comes back from being blocked, he starts the same thing over again, and a new round of edit war begins, and it is Groundhog day, and why is he so quick to change it, why does he not wait for mauco to return, and get a chance to say something about this, after all, the compromise was settled between him and Vecrumbas Pernambuco 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Please stop using plain fallacies here, there was no compromise, as you can see from above opinions, the majority of editors (me, EvilAlex, Jonathanpops, Dl.goe, DC76 and even Vecrumba) want the word "official" to be removed. Common sense is telling that you can not use "official" for an unrecognized country.--MariusM 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  every time some-one disagrees with this man, he accuses the other of Plain Fallacies and of Strawman Arguments, what is the problem, the word is clearly in context, it shows that the word is official according to the constitution and I am not an expert on this, but I think that there is only one valid constitution that the people in Transnistria respect, and that the courts of Transnistria rule by, so it is officially within Transnistria, and the subject of the page is Transnistria. Stop being an edit warrior, and stop going in circles, why is this so important, a lot of people are neutral so just relax Pernambuco 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence and photo about Suvorov

The sentence about the presence of Suvorov's statue in Tiraspol is not relevant for this article, I believe. It is relevant for the article Tiraspol. Same person who want to shorten the article in other parts is pushing his POV that Suvorov is the most important symbol of Transnistria and need to stay in the article. As a compromise, I propose to keep the photo with an explanation beneath it and remove the sentence.--MariusM 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep photo and Remove sentence.--MariusM 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep photo and Remove sentence, EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove sentence Dl.goe 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep photo and Move sentence The photo is relevant to the text and Suvorov is mentioned in the caption of two images. I don't see why the monument should be mentioned in the internal politics section, though. Ok, I moved it partially to the history section. TSO1D 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Dpotop 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral --Illythr 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me the way Tso1d made it. Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep photo and Move sentence (to the article History of Transnistria) and Remove sentence from here, per TSO1D: there is text below, there shouldn't be repetition.:Dc76 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove both, Suvorov already features (appropriately) on the Tiraspol page. (This picture looks better actually, I'd suggest replacing the Tiraspol article picture.) Also, at least one article, either Transnistria or Tiraspol, should feature the parliament building where you can actually see the statue of Lenin--both now seem to have the bucolic panoramic version where there's just an ever so slight hint by reference that Lenin is down there somewhere. I know it's been voted on before, but seeing the picture where Lenin is totally obscured twice really is rather like intentionally avoiding putting in a picture that matches the facts.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep photo, move sentence. --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Referendum section

My proposal is: "A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% voted no at second point. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not. According Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights, referendum results were falsified.".

Paragraph is short and is including all relevant info. In the same time we will have a link to the secondary article, where everything is better explained.--MariusM 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Accept above paragraph.--MariusM 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. I still support the version reading: "A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. According to official results, 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% rejected unification with Moldova. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not." The sentence about the Helisinki Committee is not included on the current page, and we are trying to find an acceptable synthesis of that information. The Helsinki statement reflects a minority view, and giving it such prominence in a three line paragraph would violate WP:Undue Weight. Besides, the version the version I put forward already states that many countries did not accept the referendum and called it illegitimate. TSO1D 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't believe HCHRM statement is a minority view. According "Tiraspol Times", OSCE also claimed fraud at referendum [14]. Calling referendum "illegitimate" is not the same thing as claiming fraud. If we keep in the article the results with 97%, we should also have the opinion that those results were falsified, not only the fact that some countries don't recognize the referendum. Non-recognition can have different reasons than fraud (for example, comitment at the principle of not modifying current borders).--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support The remarks of TSO1D are pertinent, but the Helsinki committee must be put somewhere in the paragraph (maybe in a shorter version). Dpotop 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, per TSO1D. --Illythr 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Tsk tsk. --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About Helsinki, please look at the discussion we have had above, I don't want to repeat all arguments that were already mentioned there. Most active contributors at that time, including Johnathan, Mauco, Pernambuco, and Jamason, and Illythr stated that the Helsinki sentence shuould not be included here. The referendum has had many critics, but most organizations, such as the OSCE emphasized the unfavorable circumstances and the flawed way in which the questions were formulated, rather than direct falsifications. I don't deny that the Helsinki statement is not relevant, however it is more of a fringe view and should be added to a subarticle, but shouldn't compose one fourth of a summary of the topic. 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Illythr— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSO1D (talk • contribs)

To be mentioned that not all people listed above expressed their opinion against the inclusion of HCHRM claims. I tried for the very begining to include HCHRM statement, it was rejected on the ground that we have a separate article about referendum with details and I thought anyhow this section about referendum would stay only one month, as long as it is a recent event. If it will become a permanent part of the article and it will include the results with 97%, we should include also the claims of fraud.--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It was the Illythr proposal. the most important statement is OSCE Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, did you confuse me with Mauco? I don't believe I'm deranged enough to refer to myself in third person yet. I also kind of wonder, how the HCHR acquired such definite results without sending anyone in there? --Illythr 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why you believe they didn't send anyone to watch the results? Is this your original research or you chose to believe Transnistrian propaganda, for which Urîtu (chairman of HCHRM) is one of main enemies?--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you meant its Moldovan department. Ok. BTW, I choose to believe neither of them. --Illythr 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Accept with modification the referendum was held in a flawed way instead of referendum results were falsified. I don't agree that Helsinki Commeette brings undue weight WP:Undue Weight. This is after all, the most renouned international ONG, that is known for not compromizing truth for political stability. OSCE, on the other hand, being an organization that acts by unanimity is known to often do exactly this. Not mentioning OSCE would also be wrong, since it's the most autoritary international organization in Transnistria. So keep both OSCE and Helsinki Commeette. :Dc76 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but our discussions resemble the film "The Marmot's day". We had an agreement on this question, that the version without mentioning Helsinki Committee was the best. We must have the short summary of the theme, but not the enumeration of opinions.Helen28 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, Soviet autorities were also very itchy when they were hearing the words Helsinki Commeette, and also claimed they had an agreement in 1975 that would have somehow stated there never were, are none, nor will ever be any human right breaches in USSR. Verticality is most important, above any agreement, about which, by the way, I was never aware, and never subscribed to. :Dc76 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reject for reasons I already stated earlier, ie the last sentence sounds tacked on, and grammatically incorrect. It could perhaps be added in the article with a list of other organisations that doubt the validity of the referendum, but I think it looks silly where it is in this proposal. Anyway, isn't that HCHR thing supposed to be a bit dodgy itself, or am I thinking of a similarly named organisation? Jonathanpops 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vasily Yakovlev's opinions

This generally-agreed (in November) sentence was removed in December by Mauco as not relevant. Disscussions above were inconclusive. I believe the opinions are relevant for the actual economical situation in Transnistria (more relevant than Tiraspol Times, IMHO) and if we are considering relevant the statue of Suvorov, why we should not consider relevant the actual economic situation?--MariusM 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in discussion is: The extreme worsening of economic situation of ordinary people in Transnistria was in November 2006 the subject of an open letter of one of the founders and ideologists of Transnistrian Republic, author of the first PMR constitution, Vasily Yakovlev. In his letter he is asking penal persecution for PMR president Igor Smirnov and is calling for unity with the working people of Moldova.

This is already a summary, we are providing link to the entire letter.--MariusM 12:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.--MariusM 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i forget, who is Yakovlev and why is his quotation so important.? Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

can someone tell me this, why it is required......... Pernambuco 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep:Dc76 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vasily Yakovlev is one of the founders of PMR, perhaps the main ideological founder, while Smirnov was the practical one. If you read the whole letter, you'll see it is very critical of Smirnov, whom he calls criminal in reference to economic degradation of the villages in Transnistria. He critisizes the failure of the economy due to lack of care of government for people's daily life in general (not just villages), but in reference to villages he is very harsh. The letter was published in Triaspol media with significant deletions, which generated a surge of wondering, and Chisinau press, who was generally critical of people like Yakovlev published it in full, and without much comments, as the text speaks for itself as no comment can do. The fact puts into evidence, although not clearly to first-time readers, the crizis in Transnistrian govenrment, its search for new people and new ideological basis, as the old ones start leaving the boat. :Dc76 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Dc76 Dl.goe 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

the conclusions that Dc76 makes, is this his own opinion or is it is a source, because I looked at the page history and also talk archivals, and the reason it was deleted was because it was just wrong and misleading information: the man's quote is about economic failure, and later the newest source is that the economy instead rose 17 per cent at the same time Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The economic growth is 17 per cent according to what PRM officials said. Let's see other facts: In 1990, Transnistria had a per capita GDP 2.35 times Moldova's; now only 1.15 times; quite a decline... The debt of PRM is 285% of GDP, the highest in the world. Dl.goe 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

17 per cent for which period exactly? According to the statistical service of the Ministry of Economy of PMR, during the first half of 2006 the economy decreased 11.5% and industrial output decrease even 32.8%. For population engaged in industrial sector that kind of decrease is quite hard. I am not sure if the statistics reliable, but this official information from the Transnistrian authorities. Probably this explains the Yakovlev's letter. Beagel 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - In absolute terms, the economy is still abysmal for the average Transnistrian. Unfortunately, quoting the "latest news" (for example, Mauco at various times insisting Smirnov and Antyufeyev were has-beens on their way out) is not a reliable indicator of the situation, so I would keep as it is (a) recent and (b) pertains to someone who has been in power continuously to the current day.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

External links: TT and transnistria.ru.ru

While I don't consider Tiraspol Times as the kind of links we should accept in Wikipedia, in order to achieve a compromise and understading that this is a sentimental problem for Mauco (he loves TT and TT loves Mauco; he contributed with so many articles at TT, under different names) I am ready to accept TT link. However, considering the refusal of changing the headline of External links section, I believe is necessary to include also a link to transnistria.ru.ru, to show also the voice of anti-separatist transnistrians, not only the voice of Tiraspol regime. Is a problem of having balanced info.--MariusM 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep link to Tiraspol Times and keep link to transnistria.ru.ru.--MariusM 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Don't include link to Tiraspol Times and keep link to transnistria.ru.ru EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep link to Tiraspol Times but don't include link to transnistria.ru.ru. I am not the biggest fan of TT, but it does have daily news, and not many similar periodicals exist in Transnsitria. As for t.ru.ru, I'm sorry but I think the inclusion of that page contravenes Wikipedia policy on external sources. As for the titles of the categories, I wouldn't mind changing it to pro-Moldova and pro-PMR, or removing such descriptors altogether if there would be consensus to do so. TSO1D 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  agree to the external links titles suggested by TSO1D:pro-Moldova and pro-PMR.Dl.goe 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hey, good call, I agree to these title names as well. Hmm, if voting is evil, then voting within voting must be evil squared! :-) --Illythr 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep TT as a news site, don't include transnistria.ru.ru as a hate site. DNS domain spoofing is nasty. --Illythr 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Don't include either of them. bogdan 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  why not, to hear the reasons....... Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, the Tiraspol Times looks good at a glance but is actually pretty rubbish when you dig into it (in my opinion). Having said that I always think there is way too much obssessing over external links on this page, like some people believe that these links on wikipedia will somehow sway the political status of Transnistria outside of the internet, which I believe to be ludicrous. I don't mind zdub.hostrocket.com, which is the actuall address of the 'spoofed' (as someone here puts it) transnistria.ru.ru, because for one thing it doesn't pretend to be anything it is not (ignoring the name redirect of course). You can see by looking at it that it's a blatant anti-Russian site and it doesn't claim to be anything else really. Still, even though i do like it, I have to admit it is very poor as a website and wouldn't do much in terms of further info other than highlight that not everyone in Transnistria in pro-Russian. In short I think we should probably not include either of them, but don't really care that much either way. Jonathanpops 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It pretends to be a part of .ru, for some strange reason. --Illythr 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• transnistria.ru.ru link is broken, at least from my computer. In general I favour absolute freedom of speach, provided the sourse is named for what it is. So, include TT with comment "Tiraspol Times (Transnistrian propaganda site in English)". Sub-list "Pro-Transnistrian sourses" sounds ok for TT, except that then it will bring again the discussion of what is pro-Moldovan. I don't think that 100% of sourses from Moldova should be called pro-Moldovan just b/c they don't publish from abroad. I disagree with most of Moldovan press' comments, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The only sites that I would object (provided they are informative about Transnistria, not about rasing mashrooms on the moon) would be forum sites, i.e sites, which contain 99% only forum discussion. :Dc76 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep TT, it is a news site. nix TRR - aside from being totally unprofessional looking, it is a hate site against Russians, and while they really are dirty whorebags of a nationality, we love them anyways. (kidding, of course) --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep TT. Don't include transnistria.ru.ru, becase it looks like a pitiful parody, but not a news site. But we can include the link to the English version of Lenta PMR: http://www.tiras.ru/en/index.phpHelen28 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked the tiras.ru site at first, in fact I was going to suggest we replace Tiraspol Times with it, but it has a link to a porn site on its links page so I'm not sure it's appropriate anymore. Jonathanpops 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep a link to both of the sites. Mathmo ^Talk 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Marius/Mauco

Having watched this page for a while, its clear that the cycle of proteciton/revert warring/protection is not working. The discussion page is being used well, but we're still not getting anywhere.

Anyway, rather than protection, I've instead blocked Marius and Mauco for a period of 10 days. The idea is that you guys all keep working on teh article and hopefully it can develop without edit warring.

If this fails (i.e. if edit wars continue or no discussion keeps taking place) then I'll re-protect the article and unblock Marius and Mauco after three days, as NishKid64 had left it.

The idea behind this is to allow the article to develop without edit wars. I don't blame M/M for the revert wars themselves, but they've gotten too far into it and some off-wiki cooling off time wiill do them good.

If this attempt to sort the problem fails then you need mediation. --Robdurbar 13:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there a Wikipedia rule allowing the blocking of users that cannot support each other? I throught the Wikipedia approach is based on mediation and arbitration, not blocking... Dpotop 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia rules but almost all of them allow admins to use their judgement if they want to. I am blocking M/M because I want to see if the Transnistria page can be settled but developing in their absence. As I've said, if it fails I'll unblock them. If people think my actions - which I agree are fairly unusual - are wrong then I won't revert any admin who undoes them (if anyone's unhappy, report this at WP:ANI). But I feel I've explained my logic. Robdurbar 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that Mauco and MariusM will be back in 10 days. :) I hope you are going to be here to police the article after that date. :) Dpotop 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdurar already explained, it is a ban for educational purposes, he wants them to learn from it, so after, the police work is not needed. It was very ugly to see what they did yesterday, Mariusm was addding and deleting a lot of things again and again, and there was no agreement or no consensus, and Mauco was just reverting him, and finally they both got reported for 3-RR. So one of them has to learn to work with consensus and the other has to learn to stop revert, this is what Robdurar already explained as his purpose: Educational Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Economy

There are several problems with this section:

• The term of "capitalist mixed economy" is controversial and means everything and at the same time nothing. I think that more correct and logical could be just "mixed economy" (it's not very "capitalist" if local gas company has to distribute natural gas by fixed price, which is lower than a price of purchased gas).
• Second problem is related to the term "export-oriented". Is there any statistics, which is the export ratio to the GDP? Is there any statistics about export (and import) at all?
• Also, the GDP is counted by the Economy Ministry, but which standards they use? No statiscal office at all?
• Estimated deficit - this is not a current account deficit (which is also very important economic indicator), but budget deficit. Current account and budget are different things.
• The article claims, that Gazprom owns Tiraspoltransgas, as well as Gazprombank (Tiraspol). However, as of 1 January 2007, these companies are not included in the list of Gazprom's affiliated companies and there is no reliable information about ownership of these companies.

Beagel 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Transnistria has a capitalist mixed economy. Following a large scale privatization process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy is export-oriented and based on a mix of heavy industry and manufacturing." should be deleted.
2. I think it is GDP(nominal), not PPP.
3. Companies subchapter should be removed. Useless information about companies would be described as propaganda.Dl.goe 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose following text for this section:

"Transnistria has a mixed economy. Following a large scale privatization process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy bases on a mix of heavy industry (steel production), electricity production and manufacturing (textile production), which together accounts about 80% of the total industrial output.

===Economic development====

After WWII, Transnistria was heavily industrialized, to the point that in 1990, it was responsible for 40% of Moldova's GDP and 90% of its electricity despite the fact that it accounted for only 17% of Moldova's population. After its declaration of independence, Transnistria wanted to return to a "Brezhnev-style planned economy", however, several years later, it decided to head toward a market economy.

File:Transnistria rubla.jpg

The Transnistrian ruble shows Alexander Suvorov, founder of modern Tiraspol.

===Current situation===

In 2005, the GDP was about $420 million. GDP per capita is $990, which is somewhat higher than Moldova. Transnistria's state budget for 2007 is US$246 million, with an estimated deficit of approximately US$100 million.. Transnistria has debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia), which is per capita approximately 6 times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).

The trade deficit reached $270 million in 2005. Over 50% of export goes to the CIS, mainly to Russia. The main exports are steel, textile and mineral products. The CIS accounts for over 60% of the imports, while the share of the EU is about 23%. The main imports are non-precious metals, food products and electricity.

Leading industry is a steel industry, due the steel factory of Rîbniţa (Rybnitsa), which gives about 50% of the budget revenue of Transnistria. Leading company in the textile industry is Tirotex, which claimed to be the second largest textile company in Europe. The energy sector is dominated by the Russian companies: the largest power company ZAO Moldavskaya GRES, locating in Dnestrovsk, is owned by ZAO Inter RAO UES, the subsidiary of RAO UES and Rosenergoatom, and the gas transmission and distributing company Tiraspoltransgas is probably controlled by Gazprom, althoughit has not confirmed officially the ownership. The banking sector of Transnistria consists 8 commercial banks, including Gazprombank."

Beagel 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

o.k., it is perfect, very nice job Pernambuco 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job indeed!Dl.goe

Nice to know that an economist writes that portion. Very goo job, indeed.

Your questions 1-5 are rhetorical, as you realize. Go ahead and boldly remove non-sense where you see it:

• The terms "capitalist" and "export-oriented" are, as you perhaps know, often used by economies that do not like to be called "a few years ago was state-owned in communist style, now ambiguously-owned". Every economy is capitalist (uses money and investment) and "export-oriented" (the last self-sufficient economy of earch was Japan before Meiji era). The fact that someone needs to emphasize that suggests he/she wants to deemphasize (hide) something else.
  • Actually, no: the definition of a "capitalist economy" is: "an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit". And it's not true that all economies are "capitalist" -- for example, Cuba, has a socialist economy. bogdan 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Establishing a running statistical bureau requires working relationship at the legal level with the world economy, which is a problem, as Transnistria is un-recognized. So companies register in Chisinau if want to do business with anyone but Russia, or do it through intermediaries (proper Moldovan, Ukrainian or Russian, for example). Subordination to Ministry of Economics is simply b/c the autorities want to be able to exercise direct control in case they would need it: you don't want to be critisized for your policies based on data provided by an institution you stuff and pay. Without working legal relationship with world economy, the autorities do indeed believe that.
• to understand the diference between balance deficit and budget deficit needs that the economy cares who pays the debt. As the debt is acquired in form of aid from a single sourse, and forgiven or "forgotten" to be collected under proper political circumstances, they don't get to see the difference in practical terms, so they think there is none other than for researchers' use.
• Sometimes high-ranking employees of a company would run parallel private businesses, in appearance unconnected with the "mother" company. Could it be the case here? :Dc76 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice a small problem. You might want to replace "After its declaration of independence" with "After 1990" or "1992", since technically it only declared sovereinty away from Moldova but within USSR in 1990, is de facto independent since 1992, and only now tries to declare independence (this is the 2006 referendum). Don't get into legal stuff here. This section is too nice after your proposal. Just say somehow else without the word "declaration of independence" ("de-facto idependent" is not wrong).  :Dc76 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. Actually I don't knew much about Transnistria, so I just tried to make the economy section more understandable and at the same time keep as much original text as possible. I see the problem with wording "After its declaration of independence" (which was original wording), so I have nothing against if anybody would like to replace this.Beagel 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose to replace "After 1992" with "After the collapse of the Soviet Union".Beagel 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem :Dc76 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Transnistria sovereign?

There's currently a discussion on Talk:List of sovereign states concerning Transnistria. It would be interesting for you to drop by and say what you think. Dpotop 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

o.k., thank you, good idea Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that you answered without reading the question, which made you look dumb uninformed. Dpotop 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be more civil. Even if you disagree with him, he has shown respect to you, and by insulting him, you are not likely to achieve anything. TSO1D 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Official and Officially

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I noticed this edit by Mauco: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=101879123&oldid=101875322 where he says in his edit description "as per talk", and I just wanted to know what talk this was? I know I talked about this and didn't agree that we should use the word "official" anywhere in this article and that Mauco disagreed with me. Is this the talk he is referring to or was there another?

Anyway seeing as Maruis and Mauco are blocked can I ask other's opinions on the word "official", should we use it or not? Am I wrong to oppose its use? Am I wrong in thinking the word has a point of view attached and that it's provocative? If I am wrong I don't mind, I just want to know, and I will shut up about it. Jonathanpops 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

yes maybe just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say, if it was a compromise version then all the parts have to respect that, else the compromise falls apart and the page is locked and all that, but the version was from P.Vecrumba and is he also blocked, if not, he can explain why it is there Pernambuco 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word officially. 3 editors voted for it's removal 3 are neutral and none voted for it's maintenance.Dl.goe 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

i said that it was part of the compromise, I think, and want Vecrumba to tell us because he made it, and you are too fast because this will cause a lot of trouble, if we break the compromise then just imagine what it will become like when the two Ms (maurco and marius) return, you have not considered this or heard from Vecrumba about this, but I think he said something in Talk, can we check the archives ? I will restore it because it is safest Pernambuco 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was. The discussion is here. MariusM wasn't part of this agreement, and probably, that's why he asked the question.

But I don't agree to the chapter Name. I think:"Although most commonly known in English as Transnistria, its official name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública " is POV: we say Transnistria has a disputed status, but we name it... Republic.

I suggest

The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state.
The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, Template:Lang-ru, Template:Lang-uk). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of the name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").

Dl.goe 08:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Dl.goe's version, with "Romanian Cyrilic" instead of "Moldovan". "Official" is not wrong as a word, as long as it is clear from who's POV it is official: legal/international/official Moldovan or per PMR legislation. To me it is clear that "ooficially Pridnestrovie" is PMR POV, but an outside reader who does not know Romanian, Russian, and perhaps not perfectly English could equaly well assume that this is how Moldova calls the region. The article is not for me and you, but, say for someone from Holland, Brasil, India or Japan. Dl.goe's version sounds much better, since it avoids this discussion, without damagind the info.:Dc76 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

it is very clear from how the text is, we do not say that it is official, it is not Wiki-pedia who decides this, and this is not doubted, if you read the text. It says "Official according to their PMR constiution" this means not official in general, or official according to anything else, I am neutral in this and it is very clear, there is not misunderstanding in the original version Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people might think it's very clear, but I think it would be lot clearer still if "official" was not there at all. If I, and all my family and friends say that I am the stongest man in the world it doesn't make it official in this way: Jonathanpops, officially per his friends and family "Strongest Man in the World" in not recognised as the strongest man in the world by anyone else in the world. Jonathanpops 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If some editors agree with me, one is neutral , and none opposes, I will add back the new version of chapter Names. Not only the word official bothered me in the old version, but also Although, which suggested that Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública is the real, accepted name. But it is not, it is not accepted by those that claim Transnistria is a region of Moldova.Dl.goe 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose, this was why i reverted, but I agree with you on 'although', just dont change it so much like you did. the "official' part is in the right context, it says where it is from, so do not make a big deal of it, but if you want, change the although word but not the rest Pernambuco 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is wrong, officially just shouldn't be there. Especially when more people agree that it shouldn't than people agree that it should. All we have is "officially" followed by an extremely long sentence with per Constitution of Transnistria stuck on the end. Has everyone here actually read the page Constitution of Transnistria? To me it's a sham of a page with no real information in it at all. It tells us the kinds of things this "Constitution of Transnistria" says inside without actually showing us the Constitution of Transnistria, like it's some mythical text. Where is the actual text? Why isn't it on the page Constitution of Transnistria. If it's a legitimate document why doesn't the page look something like this: United States Constitution (its obvious namesake)? Oh wait, it's in the external links at the bottom. Don't know why the English link is to pridnestrovie.net though when the first site has it in English too? Jonathanpops 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanpops. Removing officially would avoid controversy and would not send the reader to a sourse he should somehow know but never heard about. I only said it is clear to me, and I said that the text must be clear not to me, but to people who never heard about Transnistria. So, is Dl.goe's version above the one to be? (Just making sure we are talking about the same thing) :Dc76 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no consensus, and it is in context, you can see that we say "officially according to the constitution" and not just "officially", there is a big big big difference Pernambuco 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

---

I've noticed there were some edits regarding and . We had a poll at Tiraspol regarding which one is better. The result was 5 to 5. What about having at Transnistria the other image than the one we have at Tiraspol?Dl.goe 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no doubt at all, keep the prettiest one, not the ugly one, why does everyone want to show the ugly side of everything ...... Pernambuco 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pretty" is a matter of personal opinion, personally I think the second one is only marginally worse. Because the first one is too small and taken from too far away which means you can't see the details. Though having said that... I really don't care which one is used. Mathmo ^Talk 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In my oppinion articles on Wikipeida are ment to inform, not be pretty. I would like to keep the most informing picture on both articles. But, as there were 6 edits in the same day that changed this picture,(you made 3 rv.), I ask a compromise. Dl.goe 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the stature of Lenin and the building itself not the trees!

172.203.65.52 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the tree-ful picture is prettiest, but you can't see the statue at all so it makes the caption kind of meaningless. Can't we use both of them, with a caption under the tree one mentioning the park? Jonathanpops 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The picture is about the "Government building in Tiraspol", not some nice park. The tree-less picture looks more government-like. Dpotop 08:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, which one is pritier? :-) Stalin would certainly love the second. And it is as clean as the first. Use both. Usually the problem is the absense of images in articles, not their abundence. If you find 10 more, please, by all means, put all of them. :Dc76 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not find more but I put back a picture that D1.goe deleted, and if you can find 10 more, I agree. I also thought of a compromise for the government building, if it is really a big deal that some one wants to fight over. if it is so important, just find another image completely. A third one, I mean, which has the big Lenin, trees and also is pretty at the same time Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete support for Jonathonpops and Dc76 on this one. Rather than continuing a sterile debate on which is "prettier or "government-like," let's just include both pictures. Pictures are nice. "Better fewer, but better" was Lenin's motto. It doesn't have to be ours. jamason 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Log of changes to the article

• I have re-ordered several sections. If these moves seem to you ilogical, I have nothing against undoing them.
• I have not done any of the changes that are being discussed above in the voting.
• In the History section: have introduced a link, have removed something commented out, have removed some incorrectness (Tyras is not Tiraspol)
• In Economy section have changed according to the above discussion in the talk page. Feel free to find other formulations, if I was too hasty to change.
• External links: added 3 sourses found with google, renamed "side" as "sourses" :Dc76 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add in another Transnistria Source, or remove one Moldova source, as it looks a little under-represented to me. Jonathanpops 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. You want to have the same number of Moldovan and Transnistrian sourses, or is it that some sourses are unreliable? I would prefer to have as many sourses as available from whatever places we can get (except those that just repeat other sourses). I don't feel comfortable erasing an item introduced by someone else. But on the same tokken, I won't oppose a sound and specific argument for excluding a sourse. Could you, please, be more specific. Or just do the change in the article, so we can understand what you want. If you find an objection to some of the sourses I introduced (I have not read them, just looked over, they seemed quite sound at first glance, but of course I might be mistaken), just erase.:Dc76 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

o.k., I will do that, it is best to erase them because if you didnt read the links, why did you add them ... from my time what I have seen on this page, everyone fights over the links and you need to read them before you add them. there are also two links now to Radio Europe and I closely read them both, there is no comparison. the first is about media in Transnistria in cyberspace and not really about Transnistria, the other is about Transnistria in general, it is much much better, it gives a lot of information and background, and it is balanced, neutral, it shows real pictures from Transnistria. It is: "Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making" (Radio Free Europe). Link:[15] It is full of information that is relevant to the article, this is the one that needs to stay, and the other one for the Media article or the Human rights article ..... Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the removal of Transnistria in Cyberspace external link. If I remember well, it was part of the compromise: if we keep a link to Tiraspol Times, a very controversal newspaper, we keep this article too.

Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making is about 2006 referendum; i've put it there. if you want it here too, very well, but please don't remove Transnistria in Cyberspace.Dl.goe 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "strong oppose", listen, the other link is not just about the referendum, if you read it you will see, it has the history and background about the conflict and information about the people, and it is neutral. but the 'cyberspace' is just about some websites, it has no real information about Transnistria, and is Wiki-pedia written in stone? you just added some links that you did not even read, so do not pretend that others can not add links or remove links. in my case, I found one from the same place. The same source, but it is just a newer date and it has much more background and information, it is a better link for this article, and everyone will agree if you read these two and just compare them Pernambuco 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We can have two articles from Radio Free Europe. Do you accept keeping both articles?Dl.goe 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a couple citations from the article [16]:

• the Soviet period was marked by an inflow of mostly Russian and Ukrainian migrants, primarily well-educated managers, skilled industrial workers, and party functionaries. Ethnic Romanians (Moldovans) during the Soviet era remained overwhelmingly rural and agricultural. They were also socially less mobile and had less formal education than Russians and Ukrainians. These were 10%. Where is the average, hunger-fleeing Russian worker that acquired all his skills already in Moldova? That is 85% And where is the criminal element (5%)? Then A is so well-educated, and B is so backward. Very nice, was the author pickpocketed when he traveled to Moldova or what?

Pickpocketed? You are the one to mention the criminal element... ;-) The situation of Moldovans is also portrayed accurately, until the late '70ies, that is. Where are the sources for your numbers, so that they can be compared to RFE? 85% is an awful lot... --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to a local census in 2004, Transdniester had 555,000 inhabitants (31.9 percent Moldovans, 30.3 percent Russians, and 28.8 percent Ukrainians). The percentage of Moldovans remained virtually the same as it was in the Moldovan Autonomous SSR, but the percentage of Ukrainians considerably decreased and that of Russians considerably increased. So, we compare how many Republicans/Democrats are in Washington DC now with how many were in Washington DC and Virginia 20 years ago. First of all, they compare different territories (1924 and present day), then there is no even a word about Moldovan population of Transnistria dropping from 39.9 to 31.9 in just 12 years.
• Economic considerations also seem to play an important role in the Transdniestrans' desire to break away from Moldova. The Republic of Moldova has actually failed to introduce any meaningful economic reforms in the post-Soviet period and is the poorest country in Europe, with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) estimated at $900. Ukraine's GDP, by comparison, is $1,700; Lithuania's is $7,500; and Poland's is $13,000. Mixture of GDP nominal with GDP PPP, data for different countries for different years. I can show this way that Moldova now is even reacher than USA (...in 1850 in dollars that I don't say how much they mean now) Moldova failed to introduce reforms, that's something who did introduce can say, not Transnistria, who did not even 1/4 of what Moldova did, which I agree is not meaningfull.

I think that the author's point is that were Moldova to become an economic paradise in these years, then Transnistrians would be far less likely to support continuos independence. --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The sourses I introduced are:

• Michael Emerson, Should the Transnistrian tail wag the Bessarabian dog?
• Pamela Hyde Smith, Moldova Matters: Why Progress is Still Possible on Ukraine Southwester Flank
• Nicu Popescu, EU in Moldova - Settling conflicts in the neighbourhood

The second one is the former US ambassador to Moldova. The other two appear to be reputable scholars, it's not the first time I hear these names. Sincerely, I would reather give more weight to an official report by a US diplomat than to a journalist that must have been pick-pocketted. I do not say not to include the other sourse, but just say what it is: an article written by a journalist - he wrote how he understood it from his experience. :Dc76 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Question: Until what day/time are the 6 questions in the poll, and when do we make those changes in the article? I made only minor, stilistic changes, and people after me, with a couple exceptions, also did minor things. But the 6 issues raised must be settled before Marius and Mauco come back, otherwise how can we compare if their educational block worked?:Dc76 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of the 7 poll questions, the results from items 1,3 and 4 have already been introduced. The others are pretty much decided, too, although Mauco will most likely contest a few points. Actually, I'm not sure the poll was really necessary, as the proposed changes are a compromise themselves (Marius initially wanted full sections for points 1,2 and 6 and the other changes were also more drastic). --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic script

I'M SURE WE WILL AGREE ON ONE THING, DESPITE ALL THE DIFFERENCES REGARDING TRANSNISTRIA

. . . and that is: to call the Cyrillic script "Soviet-originated", as this article does in the sixth paragraph of its "Human Rights" section, is fairly absurd, is it not? What must the originators of that script (Saints Cyril and Methodius, the original Orthodox Christian missionaries to the Slavs) think of such a statement, assuming that they can hear it from whatever world they now inhabit? When they invented the Cyrillic writing system, there was not yet a Tsar or a Russian Empire, let alone a Soviet.129.93.17.14 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is referring to the Moldovan version of the script, but the sentence doesn't clarify this and is indeed kinda awkward. I think it needs to be completely reformed. --Illythr 02:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at the current sentence. As Illythr indicates, the original Romanian Cyrillic (pre-Latinization)--which does not match Russian Cyrillic--is one thing, while the PMR's return of Romanian to its Cyrillic "roots" is a blatant lie ("Moldovan" being the the Russian-alphabet Romanian constructed at Stalin's behest). 129.93.17.14's comments are nothing but PMR propaganda. If it's an exhortation that we can surely agree on one thing, and what's presented is a blatant lie, then it must be the return of Mark Street.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Nebraska-Lincoln! (IP address) Hopefully Mark was just passing through!  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanian script had at least 4 orthographies before the present one:

• old Slavonic (late 14th-early 19th century)
• Transylvanian latin (18th century-1860)
• old Kingdom latin (early 19th century-1860)
• Soviet cyrillic (1924-1932, 1938-1989), the years prior to 1940 indicate MASSR within Ukrainian SSR, and in 1932-1938 latin, not cyrillic was used there, as Stalin wanted to make communist all Romania, then in 1938 decided Bessarabia should be first (Germany would object to all Romania)

1 and 4 have nothing in common. Reading old Slavonic just because you know cyrillic is very hard, writting - impossible. You need to know letters and sound that do not exist for 400-500 years, and you have to know the medieval language, without the influx of mordern words. The comparison is like English 14 century and English today. Therefore I agree with Vercumba and Illythr. The IP address user simply does not know these details. A little reformulation for clarity is ok, but not saying cyrillic was Soviet is hiding facts.:Dc76 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say "little in common", rather then "nothing", as the modern Cyrillic does originate from the old one. The anon's concern was specifically about the Cyrillic script being called "Soviet-originated", which, in its previous ambiguous form looked weird. I just removed the "Soviet-originated" part, because I believe that "modern Cyrillic" is implied by default. Feel free to improve the current sentence. --Illythr 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic script for Russian language, of course. All Russian literature of 19th century is written in it. For Romanian/Moldavian it was introduced in MASSR, and is Soviet-originated. I personally like the formulation you gave to the sentence, as long as the article Moldovan language says the script is Soviet originated. Last comment for tonight (it's late :-)): both latin and cyrillic alphabets originate from greek, which originates from fenician or aramaic (don't remember which one), and all in the end originate from babilonian cuneiform. :-) I think the only really orriginal others were/are ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Maya, all three of which are picture-based (in the origin). :Dc76 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I clarified this further. Shouldn't be a problem now. BTW: I don't think the EU ban to 10 Transnistrian education officials was the deciding measure, as the ban wasn't lifted after the problem was solved. And, uh, source? --Illythr 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

About "Soviet-originated". I don't care, it's the same to me. See if others have anything to object. :Dc76 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

EU ban to 10 Transnistrian education officials

The ban was initially on 17 high officals (none of them education), and those are still banned. Then the 10 were added when the school issue came up. After the issue was solved, for 8 of the 10 the ban was lifted (the 2 from Ribnita, as far as I know are still banned, because there the newly built school was confiscated).:Dc76 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't known about this... I think this may be classified as original research, though... --Illythr 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this link confirms information on visa restrictions [17]Beagel 08:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, pp17-18. Current situation of visa bans: 17+10-8 Beagel 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty weak to me (did anyone of those 10 officials actually travel to the EU?), but I added it in the article about the school crisis. --Illythr 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of Talk Page, and idea for a subpage.

Every time I come to look at this page it is always so very very long, you could get better contribution to this article if the talk page wasn't so intimidatingly long and unwieldy to use. Voting is a very good way to help reach clear consensus, and I'm pleased to see that the more frequent contributors to this article have been using this. However at the same time voting is a quick way for a page to easily become much longer, but it is also something we could with ease compartmentalise and put on a separate sup page of talk. So long as we keep a clearly identifiable link at the top of the page that is big and easy to find nobody should be able to make claims against us of "hiding it away". So to start this off.... I'm creating the page now, and we can vote on if this is a good idea to use for future disputes or not. Here you go, Talk:Transnistria/voting Mathmo ^Talk 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential Mark Street Alert

1. (cur) (last) 18:18, January 30, 2007 Dfoooh (Talk | contribs) (→Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute)
2. (cur) (last) 18:17, January 30, 2007 Dfoooh (Talk | contribs) (historical correction)

The one on top added "blockade?" and the one on bottom deleted that Transnistria originally declared itself separate within the Soviet Union. Given that Mark Street was just on today as himself and Truli indicating he's retired (again) from Wikipedia (this was around 13:00), I wouldn't be surprised if he's back again--these were this user's first contributions. I suppose I could ask for an IP check but why ruin a potentially perfectly good welcome back party. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

it is not a problem , he was reverted ten minutes after he made his change, we will not accept that kind of work, but I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems Pernambuco 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)